|
Post by randombloke on Dec 9, 2009 10:12:28 GMT -4
How do you get "2500" from "2.39x10^5" though?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 8, 2009 20:13:20 GMT -4
OK, so we have four pre-Apollo sources, three of which are pre-rocketry in general. A quick analysis shows that even the earliest was within half of a percentage point of the current mean orbital distance as given by Wolfram|Alpha:
238793 (1883) 239000 (1907) 238840 (1926) 238857 (1950)
239200 (current average from W|A) 238004 (current average -0.5%)
Somewhat surprisingly though, the 1907 figure is closest. Does anyone have any more authoritative sources for the lunar orbital distance?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 4, 2009 18:57:14 GMT -4
Yeah, I was just going to say; aren't you the guy that thinks he can arbitrarily assign a random object as "vertical" without reference or calculation to show this, then determine that everything perpendicular to it is horizontal therefore, and that this somehow leads to the photographs being staged?
Yeah, the MESA cam was tilted, but have you ever seen a Lunar Module on the ground before? The ladder is tilted too. I would not be surprised if somewhere in the design process there was an engineer that added the tilt specifically so that the ladder would appear vertical on teevee.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 1, 2009 7:55:51 GMT -4
Well, I'd probably believe that someone has tried to kill him, but most likely out of simple frustration and/or rage rather than on the orders of The Cabal.
I mean, really, all that figuring out of the Great Lunar Conspiracy and he can't work out that The Cabal doesn't need assassins any more? Maybe he's not as smart as he thinks he is...
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 30, 2009 17:50:23 GMT -4
Except the temperature has already increased, the melt has already begun and the disasters are just now beginning to get warmed up. Also, stop whining about the economy; do you know what reducing carbon dioxide output means, in real terms? It means increasing efficiency. It means making a short term investment right now in order to make more money later though reduced energy costs, reduced waste disposal costs and reduced consumption. Also what do you suppose reducing the human population by 1/3 will do to the labour force? What about halving the arable land surface? How do you operate a factory that has been inundated?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 30, 2009 16:41:48 GMT -4
Since I apparently missed this:I will say, now and forever, that I don't give a flying damn whether or not humans caused, contributed to, or triggered the latest round of global warming. Seriously, it's completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
What I care about is what the global rise in average annual temperature (which you appear to agree is happening) is going to do to us and whether we can slow, stop, or mitigate it. The time is long past for assigning any blame as may be accountable: Whatever happens, if we don't do something, we as a species are f**ked. Unless you think the Antarctic continent will have enough arable land to sustain the reminder of the population on the other continents once all the ice melts and floods their coasts even as the temperature in the interior reaches "desert" and keeps on going.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 30, 2009 15:59:25 GMT -4
Oh dear, that's just wrong. The "decline" being "hidden" is the decline in response of one particular species of tree's response to increasing temperatures. It was "hidden" by substituting data gathered instrumentally (i.e. with actual thermometers, rather than estimations based on tree ring sizes) which do (continue to) show a rise in average temperature.
How exactly does this constitute an attempt to stifle opinion? Asking colleagues not to submit to one particular journal (which has, by the way, a history of review bias so bad that half its board resigned in protest in the last year) in no way affects their ability to submit to any other journals, and there are hundreds of those. Unless you make the a priori assumption of a conspiracy and then further infer that "encourage" is used here euphemistically to mean "bully into" or "threaten" which is so far utterly unfounded on both counts.
Which, at a guess, is probably why no-one did delete them, despite the request. Stop trying to spin a display of remarkable integrity on the part of many people into a condemnation of them all based on the actions of one.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 30, 2009 6:38:00 GMT -4
"trick" - useful tool for illustrative purposes, not "deliberate deception" see "trick of the trade" "contain" - establish complete boundary for, not "stifle arrant data" "hacked e-mails" - lack of evidence of any sort of conspiracy beyond one instruction from one guy to delete e-mails (not data or results) which was not followed by anyone who has so far come forward. "context" - all important but utterly lacking in this case.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 24, 2009 14:09:24 GMT -4
Uh huh. I'd like to see two things: First, evidence that these e-mails are what they are claimed to be; specifically, are they the original unedited messages or are they some manner of hoax. Second, what is the context of the "edited highlights" put out in the popular press? The Ananadtech article for instance highlights one message which indicates a "trick" of "adding real temps" - what sort of "trick" requires the addition of real data to hide something?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 24, 2009 9:01:03 GMT -4
Right, except that a court of law uses evidence as proof. If the available evidence points to you and the only thing you can say in your defence is "I didn't do it" you will most likely be convicted. With much against and none for, you are in trouble, regardless of whether you actually did it; this is a known flaw which is why we try to mitigate by requiring high standards of evidence and "beyond reasonable doubt".
Given the evidence, I doubt he'd have been convicted of murder in the first degree due to his mental state, excepting that there would be almost no chance of an unbiased jury given the extremely public nature of the crime and its victim. However, we will never know now, will we?
My problem is not with whether Oswald shot Kennedy; its with why. I would have very much liked to have known what his testimony would have been; in particular whether it would have included any interesting names, but that's mostly for my own curiosity. Were it not for the nature of his target, Oswald's crime would have barely made the papers, much less spawned a dozen conspiracy theories, each more far-fetched than the last. I think that says more about conspiracy theorists than anything else, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 23, 2009 12:13:36 GMT -4
Of course, he used Oswald's gun (thus explaining the prints) and was erased from history by the paradox he just created shortly after firing the fatal shot, explaining why no-one ever saw him leave the scene.
Basically, JFK's assassination was the most elaborate suicide since the inventor of the Clockwork Guillotine tested it on his alternate-universe duplicate before the duplicate could invent it himself, thereby securing the multiversal patent in all realities and simultaneously forfeiting it as part of his estate.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 21, 2009 12:21:20 GMT -4
No, the moron's* totally correct; it probably would take another 500 years to get back to 1960's technology if we were dumb enough to nuke ourselves back to the stone age somehow.
I was going to say "seagull" but this twerp is an insult to seagulls everywhere. Dude's not even trying.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 18, 2009 17:13:49 GMT -4
And on the others, they deliberately didn't extend the rod because they liked the illusion of apparent motion that it produced.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 18, 2009 8:17:20 GMT -4
No air is not the same as no friction, it just means no air resistance. Other damping effects on motion include: Internal friction between the nylon fibres; mechanical stresses within individual nylon fibres; friction between the flag and the pole; mechanical damping of vibrations within the pole due to internal stresses; and (completely insignificant relative to the others of course, but still present) loss of fibre elasticity due to radiation damage, mostly UV.
I probably missed a couple too.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 17, 2009 19:44:29 GMT -4
Ohhhh... so your answer is, you dont know! Why didnt you just say so? This statement is utterly wrong and everything that follows from it is therefore gibberish. The statement "It depends on what you define as the boundary of the belts" means that the answer changes depending on the precise question asked, not that there is no answer. Or, more generally, there are many answers, all correct, each of which maps to a given question. So far so obvious, I hope. Since you have singularly failed to produce (and indeed seem to gleefully exult in resisting all attempts to get one from you) a precise question, you have gotten the general answer (several times) as well as some more precise exemplar questions together with the appropriate answer for the exemplar under consideration. In slightly more mathematical terms: You have an equation with two variables; to find any one variable, you need the other first or else you can only reduce the equation to a simpler form that relates the two variables directly.
|
|